MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400643303 · doi:10.3390/jcm13144129

Total Hip Arthroplasty Complications in Sickle Cell Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4400643303 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fareed F. Alfaya, Ramy Mohamed Ghazy, Esraa Abdellatif Hammouda, Ahmed A. Mahfouz, Hamad Khalid Faya, Mohammed Abdulrahman M Asiri, Osama Hasan M. Alalmaie, Naif Alshahrani, Ali Zafer Ali Alqahtani, Abdulaziz Yahya Al-shahrani, Shaimaa Abdelaziz Abdelmoneim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemoglobinopathies and Related Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKing Khalid University
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisComplicationObservational studyInternal medicineSurgerySystematic reviewMEDLINEPooled variancePublication bias

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Microvascular occlusions caused by sickle-shaped erythrocytes in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) can lead to increased intraoperative and postoperative complications during total hip arthroplasty (THA). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the overall rate of complications following THA in patients with SCD and to identify the predictors of these complications including the surgical approach. Methods: The search was conducted across the grey literature, Google Scholar, and seven databases: Scopus, MEDLINE Central/PubMed, ProQuest, SciELO, SAGE, and Web of Science. All observational studies reporting the proportional THA complications in SCD were included. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale quality assessment tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. The random effect model was applied to estimate the pooled outcomes. A sub-group analysis for the different approaches was performed. A sensitivity analysis and meta-regression were used to explain heterogeneity and to identify the THA complication predictors. Results: Of 3230 citations, only 23 studies were eligible for the meta-analysis. The pooled proportion of total primary THA complications in patients with SCD was 42% (95% CI: 30–56%, I2 = 95%). The sub-group analysis highlighted the anterolateral approach as the approach accompanied with the least complications. The meta-regression revealed that the anterolateral approach decreases the complications significantly, −28.67 (95%CI, −56.45–−0.88, p = 0.044), while the number of hips increased the complications by 0.43 (95%CI, 0.30–0.57, p < 0.001). Male gender, age, lateral approach, and HbSS non-significantly affect the THA complications in SCD 52.05, 0.18, 6.06, and 55.78, respectively. The pooled proportions for an SCD crisis 9% (95%CI, 5–14%, I2 = 61%), dislocation 4% (95%CI: 2–7%, I2 = 66%), aseptic loosening 12% (95%CI, 7–20%, I2 = 91%), revision 6% (3–11, I2 = 92%), heterotopic ossification 12% (95%CI, 3–35%, I2 = 95%), and prosthetic joint infection (PJI) 6% (95%CI, 3–11%, I2 = 92%). The most fitted model of meta-regression illustrated that HbSS significantly increases PJI, 0.05 (95%CI: 0.02–0.08, p = 0.009), and male gender and age non-significantly increase PJI, 2.28 (95%CI: −4.99–13.56, p = 0.311) and 0.001 (95%CI: −0.27–0.27, p = 0.990), respectively. Meanwhile, the anterolateral, lateral, and posterior approaches non-significantly decrease PJI, −3.55, −0.92, and −1.27, respectively. The pooled proportion for a sickle cell disease crisis after revision was 16% (95%CI: 6–36%, I2 = 0) and for aseptic loosening after revision, it was 24% (95%CI: 12–43%, I2 = 0). Conclusions: This study revealed the high rate of complications in patients with SCD and highlighted that the anterolateral approach was associated with the lowest rate of complications. Furthermore, this study illustrated that homozygous (HbSS) individuals are more susceptible to prosthetic joint infection.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.037
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.145
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicHemoglobinopathies and Related DisordersFrench-language works237,207